On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:27:42PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > At 08:43 AM 12/11/2002 -0800, Tim May wrote: > >On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 01:31 AM, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > > >>>In a way, Mathew's and Choate's attack upon the list has done > >>>us a favour. The list is now effectively restricted to those > >>>with the will and ability to use filters, which raises the > >>>required intelligence level. > >>Does this vindicate homeopathy ? > >No, it vindicates the vaccination approach, the antigen-antibody approach. > >Or, more pedestrianly, simple learning. Those who learn to filter do so. > >Others drown. > >A central tenet of homeopathy is the bizarre and acausal notion that > >dilution of the agent by 100x, by 1000x, even by one billion times, makes > >no difference. "If there is just one atom of arsenic, maybe just one > >quarter of an atom, in this liquid, your body will learn to later tolerate > >arsenic!" > Homeopathy is a bogus quack theory backed by 200 years of trial-and-error > experience.
Just remember that when Homeopathy *started* it was less likely to kill you than the alternative. Of course, the scientific method eventually caught on in Medical Circles, an rapidly advanced to the point where they claimed they could tell if you were a criminal or not by how far apart your eyes were... -- "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." | Quit smoking: --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, | 240d, 13h ago Director of Women s Studies, | petro@ Bowling Green State University | bounty.org
